Draft Measure Information Template Kitchen Ventilation€¦ · Kitchen Ventilation – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitation Page 5 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards

CODES AND STANDARDS ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE (CASE)

Draft Measure Information Template –

Kitchen Ventilation

2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards

California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team, March 2011

This report was prepared by the California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program and funded by the California utility customers under

the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Copyright 2011 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, SoCalGas, SDG&E.

All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.

Neither PG&E, SCE, SoCalGas, SDG&E, nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express of implied; or assumes any legal liability or

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this

document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights

Kitchen Ventilation – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitation Page 2

2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards June 13, 2016

CONTENTS 1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 3

2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 13

3 Analysis and Results .............................................................................................................. 16

4 Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................................... 25

5 Recommended Language for the Standards Document, ACM Manuals, and the Reference

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 27

6 Bibliography and Other Research .......................................................................................... 34

7 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 35



1. Overview

1.1 Measure Title

Kitchen Ventilation

1.2 Description

The following describes four energy saving measures associated with commercial kitchen

ventilation. Mechanical systems serving commercial kitchens are not currently regulated by Title

24. The origin of these proposed measures is found in recent amendments to ASHRAE 90.1

titled 90.1ax. Some details of these proposed measures deviate slightly from the measures found

in 90.1ax.

The four propose measures shall address:

1. Direct Replacement of Exhaust Air Limitations

2. Type I Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations

3. Makeup and Transfer Air Requirements

4. Commercial Kitchen System Efficiency Options

1.2.1 Measure 1: Direct Replacement of Exhaust Air Limitation

Commercial kitchen systems dedicated to exhausting air and providing makeup are not

currently regulated in the Title 24 Energy Code. The proposed measure is intended to be

included as a new code section dedicated to reducing the energy impact of these systems.

Kitchen grease hoods require replacement air to be introduced to the room in which they are

located. Commonly, this replacement air is distributed outside of the hood within the room.

As kitchens are occupied spaces, this replacement air may require heating or cooling to

maintain a comfortable work environment. There is a type of hood where a portion of the

replacement air is injected directly into the hood which is intended to provide the necessary

makeup for the exhaust air but also, because the air never leaves the hood, reduces the need

to condition the replacement air. These hoods are generally called “short-circuit” hoods.

This was the promise of short-circuit hoods: that you could provide the same amount of

exhaust air as an exhaust-only hood but reduce energy costs by not having to condition the

makeup air. The reality of short-circuit hoods, however, is quite different.

Research by the American Gas Association and California Energy Commission has shown

that direct supply of makeup air, in excess of 10% of hood exhaust airflow, into the hood

cavity significantly deteriorates the Capture and Containment (C&C) performance of hoods

(PIER, 2002). This research has also demonstrated that short-circuit hoods waste energy

and/or degrade kitchen environment and hygiene compared to exhaust-only hoods. If we



assume a generic baseline C&C rate for a cooking process, the study shows the exhaust rates

for short-circuit hoods generally exceed those for exhaust-only hoods by at least the amount

of air short-circuited, thus decreasing performance and increasing energy consumption.

Therefore, this measure essentially outlaws “short-circuit” hoods.

The proposed measure is to add the following language:

“Replacement air introduced directly into the hood cavity of kitchen exhaust hoods shall not

exceed 10% of the hood exhaust airflow rate.”

1.2.2 Measure 2: Type I Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations

This measure is intended to eliminate the wasteful common practice of specifying excessive

exhaust airflow by selecting hoods that are not UL listed or have not been subjected to a

recognized performance test. The current California Mechanical Code Section 508.4 requires

non-listed Type 1 hoods to have a minimum exhaust airflow rate that is determined by the

hood size, hood configuration and cooking appliance duty. Non-listed hoods may be factory

or field-built. Listed hoods are labeled factory-built exhaust hoods in accordance with UL

710 and generally have airflow rates lower than the code minimums for non-listed hoods.

ASHRAE publishes a standard, Standard 154, which addresses general kitchen exhaust

issues and also establishes airflow minimums for all Type I hoods separated into cooking

duty and hood style classifications. The airflow minimums in the CMC and in ASHRAE

Standard 154 are similar by cooking duty and hood style.

In 2006, ASHRAE published the results of Research Project 1202 which showed that hoods

listed per UL Standard 710 and/or engineered and tested per ASTM/ANSI 1704 have exhaust

rates that are at least 30% less than the Std 154 exhaust airflow minimums. Table 1 includes

the resultant 30% better values. The proposed measure would require all Type 1 hoods in

large kitchens to have airflow rates that are no higher than the rates established by this study.

The general effect is that only listed hoods will comply with this measure. Unlisted hoods

shall still be required to meet the minimums established in the mechanical code and thereby

do not satisfy this energy code requirement. The intent is to conserve energy through the use

of engineered hoods or performance based hoods that have been validated based on

consensus standard test methods.

This measure should not increase first cost and in many cases will reduce first cost through

downsizing of exhaust, supply and cooling/heating equipment.

A 5,000 CFM threshold is maintained to exempt small restaurants but include larger

restaurants and commercial/institutional kitchens. The statement “a facility has a total Type I

and Type II kitchen hood exhaust airflow rate greater than 5,000 cfm” is included to prevent

the use of multiple hoods or hood sections in an effort to keep individual hood exhaust



beneath 5,000 cfm thus avoiding the energy saving methods required in the proposed Energy

Efficiency measure.

An exception is provided for kitchen designs that replace at least 75% of exhausted air with

transfer air.

1.2.3 Measure 3: Makeup and Transfer Air Requirements

Commercial kitchen systems dedicated to exhausting air and providing makeup are not

currently regulated in the Title 24 Energy Code. This proposed code measure is intended to

reduce the energy impact of these systems.

Engineers are often in the habit of simply providing 100% outside air makeup air units in

kitchens to provide makeup air equal to the exhaust flow rate even when “free” transfer air is

available from adjacent or nearby spaces. Adding makeup air when transfer air is available is

a wasteful design practice and should be discouraged. Using available transfer air saves

energy and reduces the first cost of the makeup unit and exhaust system in the adjacent

spaces. It simply requires some engineering and coordination to provide a path for the

transfer air.

The proposed measure is:

Mechanically cooled or heated makeup air delivered to any space with a kitchen hood shall

not exceed the greater of:

a) The supply flow required to meet the space heating and cooling load

b) The hood exhaust flow minus the available transfer air from adjacent spaces.

-Available transfer air is that portion of outdoor ventilation air serving adjacent

spaces not required to satisfy other exhaust needs (such as restrooms), not

required to maintain pressurization of adjacent spaces, and that would otherwise

be relieved from the building.

1.2.4 Measure 4: Commercial Kitchen System Efficiency Options

This proposed measure seeks to impose limitations on the commercial kitchen makeup air.

Designers of large kitchen exhaust shall choose between four options intended to save energy

to deliver and condition makeup air depending on specific project criteria. The proposed code

statement is:

Make-up Airflow Limitations. A kitchen/dining facility having a total Type I and Type

II kitchen hood exhaust airflow rate greater than 5,000 cfm shall have at least one of the

following:

a) At least 50% of all replacement air is transfer air that would otherwise be

exhausted.



b) Demand ventilation system(s) on at least 75% of the exhaust air. Such systems

shall:

1) Include controls necessary to modulate airflow in response to appliance

operation and to maintain full capture and containment of smoke, effluent

and combustion products during cooking and idle

2) Include failsafe controls that result in full flow upon cooking sensor

failure

3) Allow occupants the ability to temporarily override the system to full flow

4) Be capable of reducing exhaust and replacement air system airflow rates

to the larger of:

i. 50% of the total design exhaust and replacement air system

airflow rates

ii. The ventilation rate required per Section 121

c) Listed energy recovery devices with a sensible heat recovery effectiveness of not

less than 40% on at least 50% of the total exhaust airflow.

d) A minimum of 75% of makeup air volume is:

a. Heated to no more than 60°F

b. Cooled without the use of mechanical cooling

The energy opportunity that is analyzed within this measure is demand control ventilation

(DCV) for kitchen hoods. Common kitchen exhaust systems typically only have ON/OFF

control for kitchen and makeup fan systems. DCV systems, in contrast, react to the smoke

and heat from cooking surfaces and modulate the hood exhaust airflow rates accordingly.

These systems also have the ability to modulate the makeup air systems airflow rates. The

energy savings is produced from the reduced power consumption of the exhaust and makeup

air fans and reduced energy to condition makeup air.

1.3 Type of Change

The proposed additions to the code are Prescriptive Measures applying to commercial kitchen

systems.

1.4 Energy Benefits


Short-circuit hoods require higher air flow rates to equal the capture and containment

performance of an exhaust-only hood. A typical direct replacement (short-circuit) hood

injects 50%-80% of the exhaust air volume into the hood. Exhaust air rates for short-circuit

hoods are approximately 50% more than equally performing exhaust-only hoods. The

replacement air rates are thereby also greater for short-circuit hood systems.

The energy required to move larger air volumes in both the exhaust and the makeup

systems is inherently greater for short-circuit hood systems.




Energy is saved as kitchen exhaust air volumes are reduced. Savings manifest from

reduced exhaust fan energy and the corresponding reduced makeup system fan and

conditioning energy.


The energy required to deliver and mechanically condition outside air as replacement air is

generally greater than the energy to use transfer air. Transfer air is a valuable low energy

resource that needs to be fully exploited. By maximizing the use of transfer air, significant

amounts of energy can be saved.


Energy is saved as kitchen exhaust air volumes are reduced. Savings manifest from

reduced exhaust fan energy and the corresponding reduced makeup system fan and

conditioning energy.

1.5 Non-Energy Benefits


The non-energy benefit to this measure is the preservation of a suitable kitchen workplace

environment from adequate grease hood capture and containment.


Listed hoods have similar costs to unlisted hoods. Equipment and duct savings result from

the reduction in airflow by reducing the size for exhaust fans, makeup air fans, and heating

and cooling equipment.


Non-energy benefits include reduced consumption of raw materials since fewer and small

makeup air units will be manufactured. There could also be acoustical benefits from

reducing the size of the makeup air unit and the exhaust system in the adjacent spaces.


Demand control ventilation systems provide numerous non-energy benefits including

reduced noise, improved comfort, and reduced risk of setting off the fire alarm and fire

suppression systems. With constant volume hoods, the cooks often try to keep the hoods

off as much as possible due to the noise and cold drafts created by the hoods but at the risk

of not maintaining adequate ventilation. Hoods equipped with DCV control energize and

ramp up exhaust and makeup systems automatically based on cooking duty to minimize

noise while maintaining ventilation requirements and occupant comfort.



1.6 Environmental Impact

There are no direct environmental impacts of these measures. These measures will save energy

over time relative to current unregulated kitchen system designs which in turn will reduce the use

of energy resources and emissions of global warming gases.

1.7 Technology Measures

1.7.1 Measure Availability:

1.7.1.1 Measure 1: Direct Replacement of Exhaust Air Limitation

Short-circuit hoods represent approximately 1% of the California kitchen hood market.

This measure supports the already predominate use of exhaust-only type hoods.

1.7.1.2 Measure 2: Type I Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations

Listed hoods are more common than unlisted hoods in the current market. There are no

practical or economic barriers associated with compliance with this measure.

1.7.1.3 Measure 3: Makeup and Transfer Air Requirements

Transfer air is available to most kitchen facilities in some amount. This measure is

intended to use available air to minimize energy use and energy costs. No new

equipment, controls, or strategies are required to satisfy this measure.

1.7.1.4 Measure 4: Commercial Kitchen System Efficiency Options

Demand Control Ventilation systems have become increasingly available from several

different vendors including Melink, CaptureAire, and Halton. Though the technology is

not fully adopted by the design community, there are ample resources available for

designers and installers to become educated and implement DCV systems economically.

1.7.2 Useful Life, Persistence, and Maintenance:

Energy savings from these measures will persist for the life of the systems.

1.8 Performance Verification of the Proposed Measure


Compliance with this measure shall be enforced during plan check review by the authority

having jurisdiction.


There is no performance verification requirement for this measure.


Compliance with this measure shall be enforced during plan check review by the authority

having jurisdiction. The code officials shall review the exhaust and makeup air systems for

use of transfer air and require clarification if no transfer air is used as replacement air.




Compliance with the DCV component of this measure will be recorded on a new

acceptance test form that will require the responsible party to demonstrate that all Type I

hoods provide adequate capture and containment whether they are constant volume or

DCV style.

1.9 Cost Effectiveness


This measure is cost effective because exhaust-only hoods have lower first cost and lower

energy cost compared to short-circuit hoods. The cost of the short-circuit hood is

approximately 70% greater than an equivalently performing exhaust-only hood. Exhaust

fans, makeup air fans, makeup conditioning systems, duct sizes, duct fire protection

systems and electrical systems are larger and have higher costs than equivalent equipment

for exhaust-only hood systems.


This measure is cost effective because listed hoods have cost parity with unlisted hoods but

the exhaust fans, makeup air fans, makeup conditioning systems, duct sizes, duct fire

protection systems and electrical systems are larger and have higher costs than equivalent

equipment for systems using listed hoods complying with this measure.


This measure is cost-effective because it does not require any additional system costs and

it has been shown to save energy. Replacement air system that fully exploits the energy

savings from available transfer air consistently use less energy than equivalent systems that

condition 100% of replacement air.


For this measure to be cost effective it is not necessary to show that all 4 options are cost

effective. It is only necessary to show that at least one option is cost effective in the vast

majority of the kitchens where this measure would be required. The transfer air and

unconditioned makeup air options are always cost effective (compared to fully conditioned

100% outside air makeup) but these options are not always available (insufficient available

transfer air) or desirable (unconditioned makeup air). Therefore, the supporting analysis

demonstrates that Demand Control Ventilation systems are cost effective for kitchens that

do not meet or want the transfer air or unconditioned makeup air options. More discussion

of cost-effectiveness is provided in the Analysis and Results section.



1.9.5 Current Measure Costs


There are no costs to adopting this measure.


There are no incremental first costs to adopting this measure.




See the Analysis and Results section for a discussion on the current measure costs.

1.9.6 Post Adoption Measure Costs




There are no incremental costs to adopting this measure.




There are no incremental post adoption measure costs aside from incremental

maintenance.

1.9.7 Maintenance Costs




There is no incremental maintenance cost increase associated with this measure.


There is no maintenance cost increase associated with this measure.


There are no or minimal incremental maintenance costs associated with the transfer air or

unconditioned makeup air design options.



DCV maintenance costs are incrementally higher than an exhaust system without it. The

additional costs relate to maintenance of the sensors, variable speed drives and

controllers. These costs are not well known at this time given the relative newness of

these types of systems. The following analysis will produce a range of maintenance costs

that would allow the systems to remain cost effective. Actual costs are expected to be less

than those calculated values.

There are no known maintenance costs associated with energy recovery systems. These

systems were not studied.

1.9.8 Energy Cost Savings


The statewide energy cost savings associated with this measure were not modeled

because the measure saves energy and reduces first cost and thus is immediately cost

effective. However, the energy cost savings for a typical system over 15 years, using the

2011 energy cost data for CTZ 12 was calculated to be $6,435. Further detail is provided

in the Sections 3 and 4. The test scenario described below demonstrates that savings are

available in all cases.


The statewide energy cost savings associated with this measure were not modeled for all

climate zones because the measure saves energy and reduces first cost and thus is

immediately cost effective. However, for a typical system the annual electrical cost

savings were calculated to be $1,523. Further detail is provided in the Sections 3 and 4.

The test scenario described below demonstrates that savings are available in all cases.


The statewide energy cost savings associated with this measure were not modeled

precisely for each climate zone because the measure saves energy and reduces first cost

and thus is immediately cost effective. Energy cost savings depend primarily on the

percent of transfer available and utilized by the system. This energy cost savings

potential is shown in Figure 6, in section 3.3. The test scenarios described below

demonstrate that savings are available in all cases at least within climate zones

representing the largest future commercial growth.


Measured energy costs savings varied widely based on system size, but ranged from

about $2,000 per year to $22,000 per year. See the Analysis and Results section for

additional discussion on the energy cost savings.



1.10 Analysis Tools

No tools were used to analyze the energy and cost savings of these measures. See the Analysis

and Results section for further discussion.

1.11 Relationship to Other Measures

No other measures impact these measures.



2 Methodology

2.1 Measure 1: Direct Replacement of Exhaust Air Limitation

The economic justification for this measure was made by comparing equipment first cost and

energy cost differences between an exhaust-only hood system versus an equivalently performing

short-circuit hood system for a 10’ section of cooking line. An exhaust-only hood provides

adequate capture and containment in this hood section with 1,500 cfm of exhaust air. The

replacement air is assumed to come from the room in both cases. An equivalently performing 10’

short-circuit hood would have to exhaust 3,000 cfm with 1,500 cfm of replacement air being

directly injected into the hood and the remaining 1,500 cfm coming from the room.

The basis of comparison used the costs of the hoods, the cost of the exhaust fans, and the cost of

the addition makeup air unit required for the short-circuit system. The energy comparison used

the brake horsepower difference between the exhaust and makeup air fans. The difference in

brake horsepower was then converted to KW and multiplied by 15-year hourly energy cost data.

The systems were assumed to operate from 11 am to 11 pm everyday to simulate a typical

restaurant serving lunch and dinner. Climate Zone 12 was used as the source of the energy costs

but the energy savings are not associated with climate and would apply to all climate zones.

Other metrics like the amount of ductwork, fire-proofing insulation could also be compared but

since there is no component of a short-circuit hood system that is smaller and thereby costs less

over an exhaust-only hood system, the comparison is limited to this small set of essential

equipment to justify the costs. Equipment cost data has been provided by a kitchen hood vendor.

Figure 1: Equipment First Cost Comparison

1,500 CFM Exhaust Only Hood System 3,000 CFM Short-circuit Hood

Hood Cost 1,339$ Hood Cost 2,283$

Exhaust Fan Cost 700$ Exhaust Fan Cost 816$

Additional MUA Cost 544$

Total 2,039$ Total 3,643$

Cost Difference 1,604$



Figure 2: Incremental Fan Power

Figure 3: Sample Energy Cost Comparison

1,500 CFM Exhaust Only Hood System 3,000 CFM Short-circuit Hood

BHP BHP

1,500 CFM Exhaust Only Hood 0.405 3,000 CFM Short-Circuit Hood 0.935

1,500 CFM MUA 0.302

Total 0.405 Total 1.237

BHP Difference 0.83 hp

BHP Difference 0.832

CTZ12

elec rate

($/kWh)

(2011

Dataset)

KW

Difference 0.620

Month Day Hour

TDV

kBtu/kWh

0.084363

$/kBtu $0.0843629

Hour of

Operation

(Y/N)

15-

yearElectricit

y Cost ($)

Sum

Electrical

Cost

1 1 1 16.55 1.47 N - 6,435.50$

1 1 2 15.99 1.42 N -

1 1 3 15.75 1.40 N -

1 1 4 15.65 1.39 N -

1 1 5 16.16 1.44 N -

1 1 6 18.14 1.61 N -

1 1 7 20.47 1.82 N -

1 1 8 20.7 1.84 N -

1 1 9 21.13 1.88 N -

1 1 10 20.63 1.84 N -

1 1 11 20.39 1.81 Y 1.1258

1 1 12 20.4 1.82 Y 1.1264

1 1 13 20.51 1.83 Y 1.1325

1 1 14 20.51 1.83 Y 1.1325

1 1 15 19.57 1.74 Y 1.0806

1 1 16 19.92 1.77 Y 1.0999

1 1 17 20.66 1.84 Y 1.1408

1 1 18 20.54 1.83 Y 1.1341

1 1 19 20.5 1.82 Y 1.1319

1 1 20 20.54 1.83 Y 1.1341

1 1 21 20.75 1.85 Y 1.1457

1 1 22 20.57 1.83 Y 1.1358

1 1 23 20.16 1.79 Y 1.1131

1 1 24 18.76 1.67 N -

Electricity



2.2 Measure 2: Type I Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations

The cost justification for this measure compares two kitchen hood designs of equal capture and

containment performance. The Base Case uses an unlisted hood sized to meet prescribed code

minimum or ASHRAE Standard 154 exhaust rates. The Proposed Case uses a listed hood sized

to meet 30% better than ASHRAE Standard 154 Rates listed in Table 1.

2.3 Measure 3: Makeup and Transfer Air Requirements

The economic justification for this measure was completed by comparing the energy and energy

costs required to condition a kitchen over a range of transfer air percentages of kitchen exhaust

air. These costs were graphed to illustrate the relative energy cost savings of using the maximum

transfer air. This analysis used binned TMY3 weather data for three growing markets in

California: Riverside, Sacramento, and San Francisco.

2.4 Measure 4: Commercial Kitchen System Efficiency Options

The cost effectiveness of demand control ventilation kitchen systems has been studied by the

utility, Southern California Edison (SCE), who commissioned a study in 2009 which reviewed

five commercial kitchen installations using DCV. The installations were all based on the Melink

Intelli-hood system and included installation costs and exhaust fan energy savings only. Air

conditioning energy savings were not studied. The installations represented different sectors of

the market: smaller quick service restaurants and larger hotel and resort kitchens. The results of

their study are used here to justify the cost effectiveness of DCV system as a design option for

this measure.



3 Analysis and Results


The equipment cost for the measure case based on an exhaust-only hood system described in the

test scenario is $1,604 less than an equivalently performing short-circuit hood system in the base

case when comparing the hoods, exhaust fans, and makeup air units.

The energy cost difference between the two systems over 15 years using the 2011 energy data for

CTZ 12 is $6,435.

As demonstrated, there is no performance or economic benefit associated with short-circuit hood

systems when compared to exhaust-only hood systems.

The proposal allows 10% direct replacement to allow hood manufacturers to employ different

capture and containment strategies that resemble short-circuit hoods but do not have the

performance deficiencies of short-circuit hoods. Systems that use less than 10% direct

replacement include the Halton Capture Jet, which has been tested by the PG&E Food Service

Technology Center and shown to provide equal or better C&C compared to an exhaust-only

hood with the exhaust flow rate.


Equipment and electrical costs of each case were compared. Only the hoods, exhaust fans, and

makeup fans were used. Similar comparisons could include differences in duct sizes, diffuser

size and counts, and the conditioning energy. As these additional comparisons would reveal the

same differences as the values used, they were not included.

Table 2 below compares the equipment costs between an exhaust and makeup air system using

an unlisted hood versus a listed hood. The unlisted 10’ canopy wall hood for heavy duty used

requires an exhaust rate of 550 cfm per linear foot of the leading edge of the hood. A similar

listed hood requires an exhaust rate of 385 cfm per linear foot. The hood costs per the vendor we

consulted are the same. The explanation for this is that the hoods have similar amounts of sheet

metal and require similar amounts of labor to construct. The only difference between them is the

vendor’s expense to test their hood designs for listing. It was explained that most cataloged

commercial hoods are listed which creates cost competition so there is no economic benefit to

pursue an unlisted hood. The exhaust fans and makeup air fans cost data reflect fans sized for the

specific hood cfm. In the scenario developed, there is a $5,676 difference in the equipment.

Table 3 below compares the power and electrical costs to exhaust and makeup the different air

rates. The electrical costs assumed 5,400 hours of operation a year and an average electrical rate

of $0.15 per kilowatt-hour. The annual electrical cost difference between the systems is $1,523.



The data shows that listed hoods cost the same as unlisted hoods but the fans cost more for

system with the higher exhaust rate. Subsequent, the energy costs are also more for the system

with the higher exhaust rate.

Figure 4: Hood and Fan Cost Comparison

Figure 5: Hood and Fan Power Comparison


A scenario describing a typical kitchen/dining room design was developed as the basis of

comparison for the range of transfer air ratios in different climates. The scenario uses the

following assumptions:

o 1,000 square foot commercial kitchen

o 10,000 cfm exhaust hood

o Cooling supply airflow: 2,000 cfm or 80% of the exhaust cfm

o Supply air temperature was to 55°F

o Space temperature setpoint, return air, and transfer air temperatures were set to

70°F

o Cooling load of 9.5 w/sf

o $0.12/Kwh Electrical Rate

o $1/therm Gas Rate

o 0.0005 KW/cfm fan energy use

o 1 Kw/ton cooling equipment efficiency

o 0.70 thermal efficiency for gas heating equipment

o Hour of operation: 6am to 10pm daily for a total of 5,838 hours per year.

Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Makeup

Hood Hood Fan Unit Net

CFM Cost Cost Cost Cost

Unlisted Hood System, ASHRAE Std 154 5,550 $1,300 $2,090 $16,830 $20,220

Listed Hood System, 30% Better than Std 154 3,850 $1,300 $1,463 $11,781 $14,544

Exhaust Exhaust Makeup Annual

Hood Hood Unit Electrical

CFM HP HP Costs

Unlisted Hood System, ASHRAE Std 154 5,500 2.98 4.37 $3,552

Listed Hood System, 30% Better than Std 154 3,850 2.32 1.88 $2,029



A spreadsheet was created that used these assumptions to calculate the costs associated with fan

energy, cooling energy, and heating energy over a year using 5°F bin weather data. The weather

data was filtered to only the number of hours in each temperature bin within the 6am to 10pm

hours of operation. The annual energy costs were tabulated over the range of available transfer

air percentages. Low transfer air percentages represent higher amounts outside makeup air that

must be conditioned. High transfer air represents lower amounts of outside makeup air.

Figure 6 is a graph of the energy cost data for the model kitchen described above in the three

climate zones studied at all fractions of transfer air to exhaust airflow rates. Assumed average

energy rates were used to demonstrate the energy cost relationships of the same system in

different climates which is irrespective of the energy rate used.

The highest energy costs are associated with 0% transfer air represent conditioning 100% of the

exhaust replacement air. This is the type of system design this measure attempts to minimize. As

the amount of transfer air is increased, the associated costs to condition excessive amounts of

outside air are reduced.

The cost data for the Percent of Transfer equal to 80% corresponds to the space cooling supply

airflow of 2,000 cfm. It is noted that the transfer percentages greater than 80% may produce

more annual savings and remains a design option. Higher amounts of transfer air than the percent

of {Cooling CFM/Exhaust CFM} requires that the makeup air unit have the ability to use return

air. A unit with the ability to use return air may be more expensive and complicated to control

than a 100% outdoor air unit, the cost of which would offset the marginal economic benefit of

using more transfer air. This system design option is allowed by the proposed code.

The case where 100% of the exhaust air replacement is available as transfer air allows the

designer to use a recirculating conditioning unit without any outside air. This type of system is

allowed by the code although it does use slightly more energy than a system using some outside

air. This increased energy for 100% transfer systems is attributed to the loss of any free

economizer cooling of which there are many available hours in California.

The transfer air percentage equal to {Cooling CFM/Exhaust CFM} appears to be a reasonable

limitation for all California climate zones to take maximum advantage of economizer cooling

with relatively simple and inexpensive equipment and equipment controls.



Figure 6: Graph of Annual Energy Costs Relative to Percent of Transfer

The following figures graphically illustrate systems that do and do not comply with this measure.

Figure 7: Design Option 1: Makeup Air Equals Cooling CFM

Figure 7 illustrates the system described in the scenario above where the kitchen cooling load is

2,000 cfm and is provided by a dedicated makeup air unit that does not recirculate any air. The

balance of makeup air is provided from the Dining area zone. The unit serving the Dining unit

brings in outside air to satisfy the Dining zone ventilation requirements. General exhaust

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

80% = COOLING CFM / EXHAUST CFM

100% TRANSFER EQUIVALENT TO 100% RECIRCULATION COOLING

PERCENT OF TRANSFER

AN

NU

AL

KIT

CH

ENC

OO

LIN

G/M

AK

EUP

AIR

UN

IT

RIVERSIDE

SACRAMENTO

SAN FRANCISCO



requirement such as bathrooms only exhaust 2,500 cfm of the total ventilation 5,500 cfm. 3,000

cfm of air would other have to be relieved from the space. By transferring this air resource into

the kitchen, energy is conserved from otherwise conditioning more outside air. Kitchen

ventilation requirements are provided by the kitchen unit.

Figure 8: Design Option 2: Makeup Air Equals 100% Transfer, Cooling is 100% Recirculation

Figure 8 illustrates the condition in the graph of Figure 7 where 100% of transfer air is used to as

makeup air. The unit serving the kitchen still has a cooling load of 2,000 cfm but now must

recirculate 100% of the air. As the kitchen unit does not introduce any ventilation air, the kitchen

ventilation air must be provided by the Dining unit. Consequently, this unit requires more outside

air. This scenario per the graph on Figure 6 uses slightly more energy than Design Option 1 in

Figure 7 but not significantly.



Figure 9: Disallowed Design Option: Makeup Air Equals Exhaust CFM

Figure 9 illustrates the type of system this measure intends to discourage. The system has a

kitchen unit that provides 100% of the hood exhaust while available transfer air is being

exhausted out of adjacent spaces. This is a wasteful practice because the units are conditioning

larger amounts of outside air than the other system design options described above.


Figure 10 below summarizes the data collected in the study by SCE of five different DCV

installations.

El P

ollo

Lo

co (

Qu

ick,

Ret

rofi

t)

Pan

da

Exp

ress

(Q

uic

k, N

ew C

on

str.

)

Farm

er B

oys

(Q

uic

k, N

ew C

on

str.

)

Des

ert

Spri

ngs

Mar

rio

t (H

ote

l, R

etro

fit)

Wes

tin

Mis

sio

n H

ills

(Ho

tel,

Ret

rofi

t)

Total Exhaust, CFM 7,760 6,000 6,500 23,914 21,954

Installation Costs ($) $15,500 $8,000 $9,000 $28,000 $22,000

Annual Fan Energy Saved kWh/year 9,871 15,061 7,884 150,189 60,439

Annual Fan Energy Cost Savings (Avg. $0.15/kWh) $1,481 $2,259 $1,183 $22,528 $9,066

Simple Payback (Years) (Excl Maintenance/Heating/Cooling) 10.47 3.54 7.61 1.24 2.43

Figure 10: Study Data and Payback Period Excluding Maintenance Costs or Heating/Cooling

Savings



The study used an average energy cost of $0.15. Simple payback calculations used this average

energy cost applied to the measured energy savings but did not include maintenance costs or the

energy savings associated with heating or cooling makeup air.

The shortest payback periods were associated with new construction installations and

installations with high fan horsepower systems and high cooking demand diversity. New

construction is typically less costly than retrofit installations because of the complexities

associated with retrofits. Systems with high horsepower motors and high demand diversity

experience the largest savings because of extended periods when large fan systems operate at

lower speeds under low cooking demand. Figure 11 below demonstrates the daily electrical

power demand for an exhaust fan for one of the hotels installations. The BLACK curve shows

the power used by this fan which operates 24 hours per day without any speed control. The RED

curve shows the power required when the fan was modulated to the cooking demand under the

hood. The GREEN line is the daily average of the RED curve and represents a 46% reduction in

daily power demand.

Figure 11: Example of an Exhaust Fan Daily Power Demand With and Without DCV



The longest payback period of all the study sites is associated with the El Pollo facility which is

attributed to the project being a retrofit installation of a low fan horsepower system and low

diversity. This facility had relative little cooking demand diversity associated throughout a

typical operating day as shown in Figure 12. However, a DCV system did save enough energy

through reduce fan power alone to pay for the system in a reasonable time period. If conditioned

makeup air savings were included then the payback is conceivably less.

Figure 12: Typical Demand Usage for El Pollo Kitchen Exhaust Fan Systems

To examine the life cycle costs of the case study installations an average 15-year TDV energy

cost was calculated assuming daily operation from 9 am to 12 midnight in Climate Zone 11 using

the 2010 TDV tables. Climate zone 11 was used because the study sites were located in this

region. The average TDV rate for these conditions is $0.17. Figure 13 below includes the annual

energy savings using this average cost. Also, included are adjusted installation cost estimates

assuming the same installations were new construction and performed in a time when the

technology is more mature and prevalent in the market due to code requirements and natural

market growth. Annual maintenance costs were estimated with the assistance of a vendors and

contractors as the product of 30 minutes of service at $100/hr performed quarterly. The simple



payback periods for all installations in the case study including maintenance and reduced

installation costs are less than 9.10 years.

Figure 13: Life Cycle Costs for Case Study Installations

El P

ollo

Lo

co (

Qu

ick,

Ret

rofi

t)

Pan

da

Exp

ress

(Q

uic

k, N

ew C

on

str.

)

Farm

er B

oys

(Q

uic

k, N

ew C

on

str.

)

Des

ert

Spri

ngs

Mar

rio

t (H

ote

l, R

etro

fit)

Wes

tin

Mis

sio

n H

ills

(Ho

tel,

Ret

rofi

t)

Installation Costs ($) $15,500 $8,000 $9,000 $28,000 $22,000

Annual Fan Energy Cost Savings (Avg.TDV $0.17/kWh) $1,678 $2,560 $1,340 $25,532 $10,275

Est. Installation Costs for New Const. & Mature Technology $11,625 $6,800 $7,650 $21,000 $16,500

Annual Maintenance Costs ($) $400 $400 $600 $1,200 $600

Simple Payback Inc Maintenance (Years) 9.10 3.15 10.33 0.86 1.71



4 Stakeholder Input


No issues were raised in Stakeholder meetings regarding this measure.


No issues were raised in Stakeholder meetings regarding this measure.


Members of CAL OSHA who attended stakeholder meetings expressed concerns about

maintaining minimum ventilation in kitchens in system designs that use high rates of transfer air

usage approaching 100%. If kitchen ventilation is provided via 100% transfer air from other

spaces, the air handlers serving those spaces must include enough outside air to serve the kitchen

too. Otherwise, ventilation shall be provided via direct makeup air units. It remains the

designer’s responsibility to ensure ventilation is provided. This is stated explicity in the

following section of Title 24:

EXCEPTION to Section 121(b)2: Transfer air. The rate of outdoor air required by Section 121(b)2 may

be provided with air transferred from other ventilated spaces if:

A. None of the spaces from which air is transferred have any unusual sources of indoor air contaminants;

and

B. The outdoor air that is supplied to all spaces combined, is sufficient to meet the requirements of

Section 121(b)2 for each space individually.


Members of CAL OSHA who attended stakeholder meetings raised some key issues which

stimulated the addition of the following requirements for demand controlled systems:

1) Demand controlled systems shall include failsafe controls that result in full flow

upon cooking sensor failure

2) Demand controlled systems shall allow occupants the ability to temporarily

override the system to full flow

3) Demand controlled systems shall be capable of reducing exhaust and replacement

air system airflow rates to the larger of:

a. 50% of the total design exhaust and replacement air system airflow rates

b. The ventilation rate required per Section 121

All of these additions addressed a concern for kitchen occupants to be provided minimum

ventilation and provisions for maintaining a safe environment in the event of a hood control

failure.





5 Recommended Language for the Standards Document,

ACM Manuals, and the Reference Appendices


5.1.1 SECTION 101 – DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

5.1.2 SECTION 144 – PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPACE

CONDITIONING SYSTEMS

(m) Limitation on Direct Replacement of Kitchen Hood Exhaust Air. Replacement air

introduced directly into the hood cavity of kitchen exhaust hoods shall not exceed 10% of the

hood exhaust airflow rate.

5.1.3 Nonresidential ACM Manual

There are no ACM modeling rules associated with this measure.




(o) Type I Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations. For kitchen/dining facilities having total Type 1

and Type II kitchen hood exhaust airflow rates greater than 5,000 cfm, each Type 1 hood shall

have an exhaust rate that complies with Table 1. If a single hood, or hood section, is installed

over appliances with different duty ratings, then the maximum allowable flow rate for the hood

or hood section shall not exceed the Table 1 values for the highest appliance duty rating under

the hood or hood section. Refer to the ASHRAE Standard 154 for definitions of hood type,

appliance duty, and net exhaust flow rate.

Table 144-C Maximum Net Exhaust Flow Rate, CFM per Linear Foot of Hood Length

Type of Hood Light Duty

Equipment

Medium Duty

Equipment

Heavy Duty

Equipment

Extra Heavy

Duty Equipment

Wall-mounted

Canopy

140 210 280 385

Single Island 280 350 420 490

Double Island 175 210 280 385



Eyebrow 175 175 Not Allowed Not Allowed

Backshelf/Pass-

over

210 210 280 Not Allowed

Exceptions:

a) 75% of the total Type I and Type II exhaust replacement air is transfer air that would

otherwise be exhausted.


Refer to Section 5.5 for Nonresidential ACM language.


5.3.1 SECTION 101 – DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

101 (b) Definitions.

Makeup Air (Dedicated Replacement Air): outdoor air deliberately brought into the building

from the outside and supplied to the vicinity of an exhaust hood to replace air, vapor, and

contaminants being exhausted. Makeup air is generally filtered and fan-forced, and it may be

heated or cooled depending on the requirements of the application. Makeup air may be delivered

through outlets integral to the exhaust hood or through outlets in the same room.

Replacement Air: outdoor air that is used to replace air removed from a building through

an exhaust system. Replacement air may be derived from one or more of the following:

makeup air, supply air, transfer air, and infiltration. However, the ultimate source of all

replacement air is outdoor air. When replacement air exceeds exhaust, the result is

exfiltration.

Transfer Air: air transferred from one room to another through openings in the room

envelope, whether it is transferred intentionally or not. The driving force for transfer air is

generally a small pressure differential between the rooms, although one or more fans

may be used.



(n) Kitchen Ventilation – Makeup and Transfer Air Mechanically cooled or heated makeup

air delivered to any space with a kitchen hood shall not exceed the greater of:

a) The supply flow required to meet the space heating and cooling load

b) The hood exhaust flow minus the available transfer air from adjacent spaces.



-Available transfer air is that portion of outdoor ventilation air serving adjacent

spaces not required to satisfy other exhaust needs, such as restrooms, not required to

maintain pressurization of adjacent spaces, and that would otherwise be relieved from

the building.


Refer to Section 5.5 for Nonresidential ACM language.


5.4.1 SECTION 125 – REQUIRED NONRESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL SYSTEM

ACCEPTANCE

15. Type I Kitchen Hoods shall be tested in accordance with NJ.16.1.



(p) Kitchen Ventilation – Efficiency Options. A kitchen/dining facility having a total Type I and

Type II kitchen hood exhaust airflow rate greater than 5,000 cfm shall have one of the following:

a) At least 50% of all replacement air is transfer air that would otherwise be exhausted.

b) Demand ventilation system(s) on at least 75% of the exhaust air. Such systems shall:

1) Include controls necessary to modulate airflow in response to appliance operation

and to maintain full capture and containment of smoke, effluent and combustion

products during cooking and idle

2) Include failsafe controls that result in full flow upon cooking sensor failure

3) Include an adjustable timed override to allow occupants the ability to temporarily

override the system to full flow

4) Be capable of reducing exhaust and replacement air system airflow rates to the

larger of:

i. 50% of the total design exhaust and replacement air system airflow

rates

ii. The ventilation rate required per Section 121

c) Listed energy recovery devices with a sensible heat recovery effectiveness of not less

than 40% on at least 50% of the total exhaust airflow.

d) A minimum of 75% of makeup air volume that is:

a. Unheated or heated to no more than 60°F

b. Uncooled or cooled without the use of mechanical cooling

5.4.3 NR & R APPENDICES – NA7.5.15 (Functional Tests)

The following shall be added to the NR Compliance Manual in the NA7 section

NA7.5.15 Kitchen Exhaust Systems with Type I Hood Systems



The following acceptance tests apply to commercial kitchen exhaust systems with Type I exhaust

hoods. All Type I exhaust hoods used in commercial kitchens shall be tested.

NA7.5.15.1 Kitchen Exhaust Construction Inspection

1. Verify exhaust and replacement air systems are installed, power is installed and control

systems such as demand control ventilation are calibrated

2. For kitchen/dining facilities having total Type 1 and Type II kitchen hood exhaust airflow

rates greater than 5,000 cfm, calculate the maximum allowable exhaust rate for each Type 1

hood per Table 144-C.

NA7.5.15.2.1 Functional Testing - Full Load Conditions

The following acceptance test applies to systems with and without demand control ventilation

exhaust systems.

1. Operate all sources of outdoor air providing replacement air for the hoods

2. Operate all sources of recirculated air providing conditioning for the space in which the

hoods are located

3. Operate all appliances under the hoods at operating temperatures

4. Verify that the thermal plume and smoke is completely captured and contained within each

hood at full load conditions by observing smoke or steam produced by actual cooking

operation and/or by visually seeding the thermal plume using devices such as smoke candles

or smoke puffers. Smoke bombs shall not be used (note: smoke bombs typically create a

large volume of effluent from a point source and do not necessarily confirm whether the

cooking effluent is being captured). For some appliances (e.g., broilers, griddles, fryers),

actual cooking at the normal production rate is a reliable method of generating smoke). Other

appliances that typically generate hot moist air without smoke (e.g., ovens, steamers) need

seeding of the thermal plume with artificial smoke to verify capture and containment.

5. Verify that space pressurization is appropriate (e.g. kitchen is slightly negative relative to

adjacent spaces and all doors open/close properly).

6. Verify that each Type 1 hood has an exhaust rate that is below the maximum allowed.

7. Make adjustments as necessary until full capture and containment and adequate space

pressurization are achieved and maximum allowable exhaust rates are not exceeded.

Adjustments may include:

a. adjust exhaust hood airflow rates

b. add hood side panels

c. Add rear seal (back plate)

d. Increase hood overhang by pushing equipment back

e. Relocate supply outlets to improve the capture and containment performance

8. Measure and record final exhaust airflow rate per Type 1 hood.

NA7.5.15.2.2 Functional Testing - Exhaust Systems with Demand Control Ventilation



The following additional acceptance test shall be performed on all hoods with demand control

ventilation exhaust systems.

1. Turn off all kitchen hoods, makeup air and transfer systems

2. Turn on one of the appliances on the line and bring to operating temperature. Confirm that:

a. DCV system automatically switches from off to the minimum flow setpoint.

b. The minimum flow setpoint does not exceed the larger of

i. 50% of the design flow, or

ii. the ventilation rate required per Section 121.

c. The makeup air and transfer air system flow rates modulate as appropriate to match

the exhaust rate

d. Appropriate space pressurization is maintained.

3. Press the timed override button. Confirm that system ramps to full speed and back to

minimum speed after override times out.

4. Operate all appliances at typical conditions. Apply sample cooking products and/or utilize

smoke puffers as appropriate to simulate full load conditions. Confirm that:

a. DCV system automatically ramps to full speed.

b. Hood maintains full capture and containment during ramping to and at full-speed

c. Appropriate space pressurization is maintained.

5.5 Nonresidential ACM Manual

Kitchen Space Type: In order for compliance software to analyze this and other kitchen related

measures, kitchens shall be modeled as separate space types apart from other building occupancy

types and be assigned lighting, plug load, and people densities. Internal load shall use the

following:

Lighting: 1.6 watts per square foot (proposed LPD entered by user)

Plug Load: 10 watts per square foot (same in proposed case)

Occupants: 100 square feet per occupant (same in proposed case)

Schedules: Use Table N2-8-Nonresidential Occupancy Schedules(Other than Retail)

User Input:

1. Values for all Type I and Type II exhaust hoods in the modeled kitchen.

a. CFM values for all hoods

b. For Type I hoods ONLY

i. Hood Length

ii. Hood Style (Canopy, Wall Mount, etc.)

iii. Hood Cooking Duty (Highest duty appliance under hood)

The Standard Baseline Model:

1. Total kitchen exhaust shall be either:



a) If the proposed total exhaust is less than 5,000 cfm, then the baseline shall match the

proposed exhaust rate.

b) If the proposed total exhaust rate is greater than or equal to 5,000 cfm, then the

baseline Type II exhaust rate shall match the proposed but the baseline Type I exhaust

rate shall be calculated from Table 144-C using the user inputs for hood length, style

and highest cooking duty.

c) Hood exhaust total static pressure shall be 2.5” and the fan efficiency shall be 50%.

d) If the baseline total exhaust airflow rate is greater than 5,000 cfm then the kitchen

exhaust shall be modeled as VAV with the follow airflow fractional schedule. Fan

power fraction = airflow fraction ^3. VAV exhaust airflow fractional schedule:

e) 2. Conditioning Systems

a. Each kitchen shall have a dedicated makeup air unit (MAU).

b. If the rest of the building has a chilled water plant then the MAU shall be chilled

water. Otherwise the MAU shall be air-cooled DX.

c. MAU design CFM shall be the larger of:

i. CFM required for the peak space cooling load

ii. Total exhaust CFM

d. For each hour that kitchen is occupied:

i. Exhaust Air (EA) is constant volume or VAV (see above)

ii. MAU supply air flow = EA

iii. MAU outside air flow (OA):

1. When zone is in cooling mode and OAT<RAT then OA = EA

2. Otherwise OA = EA minus available transfer air (available transfer

shall be calculated from the building minimum outside airflow less

any exhaust airflows (not including the kitchen exhausts) and 0.05

cfm/sf for exfiltration)

e. For other details on the DX MAU refer to System 7 (SZ VAV)

f. For other details on the CHW MAU refer to System 10 (CRAH)

Hour Fraction Hour Fraction Hour Fraction

1 0.0 9 0.5 17 0.5

2 0.0 10 1.0 18 1.0

3 0.0 11 0.5 19 0.5

4 0.0 12 1.0 20 0.00

5 0.0 13 0.5 21 0.00

6 0.0 14 1.0 22 0.00

7 0.5 15 0.5 23 0.00

8 0.5 16 1.0 24 0.00





6 Bibliography and Other Research

1. Public Interest Energy Research(PIER). 2002. “Makeup air effects on commercial

kitchen exhaust system performance (CEC P500-03-007F).” Grant Brohard, PG&E;

Richard Swierczyna, Paul Sobiski, Vernon Smith, AEC; Donald Fisher, Fisher-Nickel,

Inc.

2. Southern California Edison. June 30, 2009. “Demand Control Ventilation for

Commercial Kitchen Hoods (ET 07.10 Report)” Design & Engineering Services

Customer Service Business Unit – Southern California Edison

3. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 154-2003, Ventilation for Commercial Cooking Operations.

4. ASHRAE 1202-RP, Effect of Appliance Diversity and Position on Commercial Kitchen

Hood Performance.

5. California Building Standards Commission. 2007. Title 24 California Mechanical Code,

California Code of Regulations, Part 4.



7 Appendices


7.1.1 TEST SCENARIO DATA FOR RIVERSIDE

Riverside OAT RAT OA CFM RA CFM MAT CFM MAT

25 70 2000 0 2000 25

30 70 2000 0 2000 30

% Transfer Air 80.00% 35 70 2000 0 2000 35

Electric Rates $0.12 per Kwh 40 70 2000 0 2000 40

Gas Rates $1 per Therm 45 70 2000 0 2000 45

Fan KW/CFM 0.000497 KW/CFM 50 70 2000 0 2000 50

Cooling Efficiency 1 Kw/ton 55 70 2000 0 2000 55

Heating Efficiency 0.7 thermal efficiency 60 70 2000 0 2000 60

RAT 70 F 65 70 2000 0 2000 65

Exhaust Air 10000 cfm 70 70 2000 0 2000 70

75 70 2000 0 2000 75

80 70 2000 0 2000 80

85 70 2000 0 2000 85

90 70 2000 0 2000 90

95 70 2000 0 2000 95

100 70 2000 0 2000 100

DT Btuh Fan KW Cost per Hour DT Btuh Cost Per Hour DT Btuh Cost per Hour

15.0 32422 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 0 $0.00 -30.0 -64778 ($0.93)

15.0 32422 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 0 $0.00 -25.0 -53978 ($0.77)

15.0 32422 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 0 $0.00 -20.0 -43178 ($0.62)

15.0 32422 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 0 $0.00 -15.0 -32378 ($0.46)

15.0 32422 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 0 $0.00 -10.0 -21578 ($0.31)

15.0 32422 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 0 $0.00 -5.0 -10778 ($0.15)

15.0 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0.0 -22 ($0.00) 0.0 0 $0.00

10.0 21600 0.9943 ($0.12) -5.0 -10822 ($0.11) 0.0 0 $0.00

5.0 10800 0.9943 ($0.12) -10.0 -21622 ($0.22) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -15.0 -32422 ($0.32) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -20.0 -43222 ($0.43) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -25.0 -54022 ($0.54) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -30.0 -64822 ($0.65) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -35.0 -75622 ($0.76) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -40.0 -86422 ($0.86) 0.0 0 $0.00

0.0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -45.0 -97222 ($0.97) 0.0 0 $0.00

HeatingMechanical CoolingFree Cooling



NET NET Bin Hours Annual Annual

BTUH Costs per Hour 6am-10pm BTU's Costs

($32,357) ($1.04) 2 -64,714 -$2.09

($21,557) ($0.89) 12 -258,682 -$10.69

($10,757) ($0.74) 53 -570,110 -$39.02

$43 ($0.58) 129 5,573 -$75.06

$10,843 ($0.43) 291 3,155,371 -$124.42

$21,643 ($0.27) 444 9,609,581 -$121.34

$32,378 ($0.12) 834 27,003,586 -$99.69

$10,778 ($0.23) 1090 11,748,456 -$248.01

($10,822) ($0.34) 794 -8,592,350 -$266.41

($32,422) ($0.44) 525 -17,021,340 -$232.85

($43,222) ($0.55) 539 -23,296,442 -$297.27

($54,022) ($0.66) 469 -25,336,130 -$309.32

($64,822) ($0.77) 347 -22,493,095 -$266.33

($75,622) ($0.88) 195 -14,746,212 -$170.73

($86,422) ($0.98) 78 -6,740,885 -$76.72

($97,222) ($1.09) 38 -3,694,421 -$41.48

5838 -71,227,102 -$2,379.32

Annual Hours, TMY3Total BTU's Used Annual Energy Cost

7.1.2 TEST SCENARIO DATA FOR SACRAMENTO

Sacramento OAT RAT OA CFM RA CFM MAT CFM MAT

25 70 2000 0 2000 25

30 70 2000 0 2000 30

% Transfer Air 80.00% 35 70 2000 0 2000 35



Fan KW/CFM 0.000497 KW/CFM 50 70 2000 0 2000 50



RAT 70 F 65 70 2000 0 2000 65

Exhaust Air 10000 cfm 70 70 2000 0 2000 70

75 70 2000 0 2000 75

80 70 2000 0 2000 80

85 70 2000 0 2000 85

90 70 2000 0 2000 90

95 70 2000 0 2000 95

100 70 2000 0 2000 100


15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -30 -64800 ($0.93)

15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -25 -54000 ($0.77)

15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -20 -43200 ($0.62)

15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -15 -32400 ($0.46)

15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -10 -21600 ($0.31)

15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -5 -10800 ($0.15)

15 32400 0.994266667 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 0 0 $0.00

10 21600 0.994266667 ($0.12) -5 -10800 ($0.11) 0 0 $0.00

5 10800 0.994266667 ($0.12) -10 -21600 ($0.22) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -15 -32400 ($0.32) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -20 -43200 ($0.43) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -25 -54000 ($0.54) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -30 -64800 ($0.65) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -35 -75600 ($0.76) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -40 -86400 ($0.86) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.994266667 ($0.12) -45 -97200 ($0.97) 0 0 $0.00

Free Cooling Mechanical Cooling Heating





-32400 ($1.05) 6 -194,400 -$6.27

-21600 ($0.89) 34 -734,400 -$30.29

-10800 ($0.74) 157 -1,695,600 -$115.62

0 ($0.58) 342 0 -$199.10

10800 ($0.43) 636 6,868,800 -$272.13

21600 ($0.27) 675 14,580,000 -$184.68

32400 ($0.12) 789 25,563,600 -$94.14

10800 ($0.23) 786 8,488,800 -$178.67

-10800 ($0.34) 548 -5,918,400 -$183.75

-32400 ($0.44) 402 -13,024,800 -$178.21

-43200 ($0.55) 455 -19,656,000 -$250.85

-54000 ($0.66) 444 -23,976,000 -$292.73

-64800 ($0.77) 269 -17,431,200 -$206.41

-75600 ($0.88) 195 -14,742,000 -$170.69

-86400 ($0.98) 75 -6,480,000 -$73.75

-97200 ($1.09) 27 -2,624,400 -$29.47

5834 -50,781,600 -$2,460.48


7.1.3 TEST SCENARIO DATA FOR SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco OAT RAT OA CFM RA CFM MAT CFM MAT

25 70 2000 0 2000 25

30 70 2000 0 2000 30

% Transfer Air 80.00% 35 70 2000 0 2000 35



Fan KW/CFM 0.000497 KW/CFM 50 70 2000 0 2000 50



RAT 70 F 65 70 2000 0 2000 65

Exhaust Air 10000 cfm 70 70 2000 0 2000 70

75 70 2000 0 2000 75

80 70 2000 0 2000 80

85 70 2000 0 2000 85

90 70 2000 0 2000 90

95 70 2000 0 2000 95

100 70 2000 0 2000 100


15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -30 -64800 ($0.93)

15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -25 -54000 ($0.77)

15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -20 -43200 ($0.62)

15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -15 -32400 ($0.46)

15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -10 -21600 ($0.31)

15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 -5 -10800 ($0.15)

15 32400 0.9943 ($0.12) 0 0 $0.00 0 0 $0.00

10 21600 0.9943 ($0.12) -5 -10800 ($0.11) 0 0 $0.00

5 10800 0.9943 ($0.12) -10 -21600 ($0.22) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -15 -32400 ($0.32) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -20 -43200 ($0.43) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -25 -54000 ($0.54) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -30 -64800 ($0.65) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -35 -75600 ($0.76) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -40 -86400 ($0.86) 0 0 $0.00

0 0 0.9943 ($0.12) -45 -97200 ($0.97) 0 0 $0.00

Free Cooling Mechanical Cooling Heating





-32400 ($1.05) 0 0 $0.00

-21600 ($0.89) 9 -194,400 -$8.02

-10800 ($0.74) 98 -1,058,400 -$72.17

0 ($0.58) 164 0 -$95.48

10800 ($0.43) 470 5,076,000 -$201.11

21600 ($0.27) 647 13,975,200 -$177.02

32400 ($0.12) 1209 39,171,600 -$144.25

10800 ($0.23) 1394 15,055,200 -$316.87

-10800 ($0.34) 798 -8,618,400 -$267.58

-32400 ($0.44) 464 -15,033,600 -$205.70

-43200 ($0.55) 351 -15,163,200 -$193.51

-54000 ($0.66) 188 -10,152,000 -$123.95

-64800 ($0.77) 37 -2,397,600 -$28.39

-75600 ($0.88) 10 -756,000 -$8.75

-86400 ($0.98) 1 -86,400 -$0.98

-97200 ($1.09) 0 0 $0.00

5840 19,818,000 -$1,843.77





7.2.1 Diagram of a Demand Control Ventilation Hood

7.2.2 Sample Acceptance Test Form

This sample form is not current with ACM language above. Form shall be finalized after

the comment period



Type I Kitchen Hood Acceptance Document MECH-16-A

NA.7.5.15 Form __ of __

PROJECT NAME DATE

PROJECT ADDRESS

TESTING AUTHORITY TELEPHONE

VFD NAME / DESIGNATION

Construction Inspection

1 Instrumentation to perform test includes, but not limited to:

a. Duct airflow test and balance equipment

2 Test preparation

□□□□

Type I Kitchen Hood Acceptance Document MECH-16-A

NA.7.5.15 Form __ of __

PROJECT NAME DATE

Company:

Signature: Date:

License: Expires:

A. Equipment Testing - Design/Maximum Exhaust Conditions (Non-DCV Systems) Results

Step 1: Set all kitchen hoods, makeup air and transfer systems to Design Airflows

a. Sum of all Type I Kitchen Hood Exhausts CFM =

b. Sum of all other Kitchen Exhausts CFM =

c. Sum of all Makeup Air Systems CFM =

d. Sum of all Transfer Air Systems CFM =

e. Type I Exhaust Fan Tag

f. Adjust grease exhaust hood CFM until the plume extends no more than 3" from hood edge -

g. Final Design Maximum Exhaust CFM CFM =

i.

Co mplies

with Lis ting

(Y/N)

ii. CFM =

h. Adjust Makeup Air air volumes up or down to match Exhaust adjustment -

i. Final Design Maximum Makeup Air CFM CFM =

Step 3: Repeat test for each Type I Hood

B. Equipment Testing - Design/Maximum Exhaust Conditions (DCV Systems) Results

Step 1: Set all kitchen hoods, makeup air and transfer systems to Design Minimum Airflows

j. Sum of all Type I Kitchen Hood Exhausts CFM =

k. Sum of all other Kitchen Exhausts CFM =

l. Sum of all Makeup Air Systems CFM =

m. Sum of all Transfer Air Systems CFM =

n. Operating Speed at Minimum Setpoint % of Full Speed

o. Type I Exhaust Fan Tag

p. Exhaust and Makeup Air System Ramp Up in reaction to heat and smoke Y/N =

q. Adjust grease exhaust hood Max CFM until the plume extends no more than 3" from hood edge -

r. Final Design Maximum Exhaust CFM CFM =

s. Adjust Makeup Air air volumes up or down to match Exhaust adjustment -

t. Final Design Maximum Makeup Air CFM CFM =

i.

Co mplies

with Lis ting

(Y/N)

ii. CFM =

Step 4: Repeat test for each Type I Hood

□

□

Retes t us ing impro vements , Des cribe meas ures ,

and Reco rd F ina l Des ign Maximum Exhaus t CFM

FAIL: Any Pre-Test Inspection responses are incomplete OR there is one or more negative (N - no)

responses in Testing Results section. Provide explanation below. Use and attach additional pages if

necessary.

2011 ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CODE COMPLIANCE

Step 2: Operate all heat producing cooking equipment at full operational conditions.

Apply sample cooking products when appropriate. Observe any escaping plume of heat

and/or cooking smoke beyond the edges of the Type I Hoods.

Step 3: Operate all heat producing cooking equipment at full operational conditions.

Apply sample cooking products when appropriate. Observe any escaping plume of heat

and/or cooking smoke beyond the edges of the Type I Hoods.

____________________________________

____________________________________ __________________

____________________________________ __________________

PASS: All Design Declaration, Pre-Test Inspection responses are complete and Testing Results

responses are positive

(Y - yes)

Step 2: Operate an even distribution of cooking equipment under hood at 50% full

operating power with no cooking products to witness fan systems engage from Off to

Minimum Flow setpoint based on hood temperatures alone.

Retes t us ing impro vements , Des cribe meas ures ,

and Reco rd F ina l Des ign Maximum Exhaus t CFM

If ho o ds a re UL Lis ted and reco rded CFM is grea te r than the UL lis ted, reduce CFM to lis ting by

us ing ho o d s ide pane ls , back pla tes , o r re lo ca ting s upply o utle ts to impro ve the capture and

co nta inment perfo rmance a t lo wer exhaus t CFMs .

If ho o ds a re UL Lis ted and reco rded CFM is grea te r than the UL lis ted, reduce CFM to lis ting by

us ing ho o d s ide pane ls , back pla tes , o r re lo ca ting s upply o utle ts to impro ve the capture and

co nta inment perfo rmance a t lo wer exhaus t CFMs .

All exhaust, makeup, and transfer air systems installed and operational.

All demand control ventilation systems commissioned and ready for final setpoint adjustments.

All cooking equipment being served by Type I hoods installed and operational.

Cooking products available to create a full load cooking test scenario.

2011 ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CODE COMPLIANCE

__________________________

Checked by/Date

Enforcement Agency Use

Intent: Satisfy Type I Kitchen Exhaust Rates and Capture and Containment requirements per Section

XXX.



7.2.3 Demand Control Ventilation for Commercial Kitchen – SCE Case Study

Documents

Draft Measure Information Template Kitchen Ventilation€¦ · Kitchen Ventilation – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitation Page 5 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards